RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The treatment of recurrent high-grade gliomas (HGG) is controversial. There are different therapeutic schedules but without a clear orientation about which of them should be used in each clinical situation. In addition, when patients suffer a second recurrence or they have poor performance status, they are excluded from clinical trials, although second recurrences and poor performance status are indeed more and more real and common situations in the clinical setting. In this study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of fotemustine (FTM) in HGG [fundamentally, glioblastomas (GB)], independent of time of recurrence or performance status. METHODS/PATIENTS: Retrospective study in HGG patients treated with FTM in second or further line according to standard, the Addeo or any other scheme, starting treatment prior to 30 November 2012. Included patients reflect the regular situation in which the drug is used in terms of comorbidities and analytic situation (hematologic, renal and hepatic functions). Response assessment was performed by MRI and according to the clinical protocols of each center (every 8-12 weeks). Clinical situation and supportive care drugs were evaluated in each medical consultation. Clinical end-points analyzed, among others, were: PFS-6, PFS, OS, response rates, toxicity, quality of life and neurocognitive impact. RESULTS: In terms of activity, an overall response rate of 8 % was observed: partial response 6 % (7 patients) and complete response 2 % (2 patients). The median time to achieve the greater response with FTM was 73 days (4-841 days). Patients treated according to the Addeo schedule had a shorter time to greater response in comparison with other schedules (85.9 vs 114 days), although without statistical significance. There were no significant differences in progression-free survival (PFS) when comparing different FTM schedules or using FTM in first or second recurrence. Median PFS: 3 months. PFS-6: 30.3 %. Overall survival (OS): although without significant differences, a tendency to better survival when using the Addeo schedule versus other schedules was observed (at 6 months, 44.6 vs 34.5 %; at 12 months, 25 vs 23.6 %; at 18 months, 11.5 vs 7.9 %), as well as if earlier use (second vs third line) concerning OS-12 (33.7 vs 18.2 %). Median OS: 5.2 months. Grades 3-4 toxicity was 28 % (31 patients), being neutropenia (4 %) and thrombocytopenia (17 %) the most frequent adverse reactions. From quality of life and neuro-cognitive function perspectives, 11 patients (10 %) and 16 (14 %) improved the Karnofsky Index and neurological impairment, respectively, after FTM treatment. CONCLUSION: This study has shown that FTM is safe and has a comparable activity with other available therapeutic options of use in the treatment of recurrent HGG.
Asunto(s)
Antineoplásicos/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias Encefálicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Glioma/tratamiento farmacológico , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/tratamiento farmacológico , Compuestos de Nitrosourea/uso terapéutico , Compuestos Organofosforados/uso terapéutico , Adulto , Anciano , Neoplasias Encefálicas/mortalidad , Femenino , Glioma/mortalidad , Humanos , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
PURPOSE: The standard adjuvant treatment for glioblastoma is temozolomide concomitant with radiotherapy, followed by a further six cycles of temozolomide. However, due to the lack of empirical evidence and international consensus regarding the optimal duration of temozolomide treatment, it is often extended to 12 or more cycles, even in the absence of residual disease. No clinical trial has shown clear evidence of clinical benefit of this extended treatment. We have explored the economic impact of this practice in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Spanish neuro-oncologists completed a questionnaire on the clinical management of glioblastomas in their centers. Based on their responses and on available clinical and demographic data, we estimated the number of patients who receive more than six cycles of temozolomide and calculated the cost of this extended treatment. RESULTS: Temozolomide treatment is continued for more than six cycles by 80.5 % of neuro-oncologists: 44.4 % only if there is residual disease; 27.8 % for 12 cycles even in the absence of residual disease; and 8.3 % until progression. Thus, 292 patients annually will continue treatment beyond six cycles in spite of a lack of clear evidence of clinical benefit. Temozolomide is covered by the National Health Insurance System, and the additional economic burden to society of this extended treatment is nearly 1.5 million euros a year. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal duration of adjuvant temozolomide treatment merits investigation in a clinical trial due to the economic consequences of prolonged treatment without evidence of greater patient benefit.